NickyJ
Retired Narrator
They aren't running to be the next Bush.
Anyway, unless you have seen a Republican candidate other than Ron Paul condemn W's presidency, my point stands.He was conservative by no means.
The "not Romney" wave cycle
- Thread starter Integral
- Start date
Anyway, unless you have seen a Republican candidate other than Ron Paul condemn W's presidency, my point stands.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Go on.
True, but in comparison to his other plans, including the total destruction of the American monetary system, I guess that'll be the least of your problems.
They aren't running to be the next Bush.
Of course they are. They just aren't saying it. They are for:
- Tax cuts for the rich, even though there's no benefit to the economy or anyone that isn't rich for doing it and massively driving up the deficit in the process.
- Hyper aggressive chickenhawk foreign policy, with no considerations of the long term cost.
- Whatever deregulation business wants, business gets, regardless of how harmful that is to the rest of the country.
- Taking benefits from the poor and middle class so that they will be poorer and more desperately forced to do what they are told to do.
- Authoritarian social policy to ram religion down the throats of all Americans.
- Vast redistribution of wealth to the very wealthy.
- Wall St doing any damned thing it wants.
Hell, even Ron Paul is on board for the worst of corporate cronyism, he wants to cut their taxes and eliminate their regulations as well. Just like any good bought and paid for Wall St flunky.
He was a conservative in every way. If conservatives wanted it done, Bush did it. He had almost no policies that were not conservative policies. And he was even further to the right than Congressional conservatives on some issues like raping away Social Security from future generations to generate more wealth for Wall St.
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
On the one hand, I think you're wrong. On the other, you neglected the best argument for a long primary being good for the party. Which is:
A long primary gets lots of free media attention, on "objective" news programs that viewers trust more than they trust campaign ads. The pundits discuss what the candidates say, comment on how convincing it is or isn't, and speculate on how the public will react. And in these Republican debates, viewers hear a steady stream of ... can you guess what I will say here ...
Spoiler :
Result: the Overton window moves to the right. That will help them in the general election.
But. The power of SuperPACs has made negative ads more powerful than ever. And Romney (if it is to be Romney) has already proven that he is relatively resilient to negative ads. So there is no point in further "testing". More negative ads will not make him stronger. A person who is relatively resistant to a poison will still die if the dosage is high enough.
But he liked immigration so he must be a librul.
10 years ago conservatives were pro immigration. Remember the context: Businesses wanted cheap labor, so immigration was not an enforced issue. Reagan signed an amnesty, after all, and then for 20 years 4 presidents, 3 of them Republican, and 10 Congresses, with majorities of both parties over time, chose open immigration.
In fact Bush was more consistent with conservatism on immigration than most Republicans now. Now racism and nativism are trumping conservatism again.
I was being sarcastic up there - I totally get that. Openness to immigration is one of the few things about conservatism I really like, and it's awful to see our conservative party replace it with xenophobia. But if Republicans really don't want votes from the Hispanic community, the Democrats are happy to take them off their hands.
But they are really annoyed with Republicans.
Oerdin
Deity
This is very true and is just another example of how far right the Republican Party has moved in recent years.
Romney's inability to efficiently deal with the waves in the kiddie pool does not bode well for him when he steps into the ocean.
NickyJ
Retired Narrator
Having more than twice the delegate count of all your opponents combined isn't efficient?
First of all, that is not true. Second, it is past Super Tuesday and the clown car candidates are still making waves.Having more than twice the delegate count of all your opponents combined isn't efficient?
NickyJ
Retired Narrator
How is it not true? Add them up yourself. Here's a link to get you started: CNN Delegate Tracker
Checked your link and it's close to my source. Roomney does not have twice the delegates as the rest of the candidates combined.
NickyJ
Retired Narrator
Ah, I see. You are correct. He has more than all of them combined once. Still, that's pretty efficient.
Efficient? Yes. Convincing? Hell, no.
I prefer to use the NYTimes/AP numbers because they track the super-delegates separately and easily (as well as clearly indicate all the unpledged delegates on a single chart). The numbers are fairly close to CNN's for Romney, but the AP has Ron Paul at 47, not 66. Santorum seems to have more and Gingrich less.
Despite the 24-hour networks trying to keep the race going, it's getting hard to see how Romney doesn't win unless something major happens.
Despite the 24-hour networks trying to keep the race going, it's getting hard to see how Romney doesn't win unless something major happens.
Like Gingrich dropping out after losing Mississippi and/or Alabama?
He's the only one remotely rational and sane in the race and he can't sew it up yet even with rules extremely biases in his favor. That's not showing us much.
